PDA

View Full Version : NVIDIA Skipper - "enormous polygon counts"


GamblerFEXonlin
11-11-02, 04:49 AM
http://www.nvnews.net/#1036954373

"Enormous polygon counts with special rendering mode for GeForce3 and GeForce4. Dot 3 bump mapping, pixel shaders and vertex shaders. Gorgeous real time water reflection."

If they call this (http://217.8.136.112/root/pix/skipper_01.jpg) high-poly and are almost saying "this is what graphics you can expect from a GF3 and GF4" I am dissapointed. They could at least have used bumpmapping on the boats details/windows. The water looks good but it seems thats where all the polygons went, the bridge in the background and its little island is just awful.

I wanto see doom3 like bumpmapping and lightening/shadowing, that is what I find next-gen and impressive now, not reflective and refractive pixel-shaded water effects (and the rest looks cartoony like most other games). But of course, not the polycount in doom3 that one is awful, but I guess its all we can have so far because those polygons casts exact real-time shadows and they are animated so any more is too much for the CPU and AGP and graphics cards stencil buffer performance? I would love to read why doom3 has so low polycount.


Polygons? I'll Take a Pass (http://www.gamespy.com/futureofgaming/engines/)

In this article Carmack is quoted, he wants "100 passes per polygon" (I can see that if you fire a rocket with see-through rocketsmoke sprites and it has 100 of those hehe). But with an attitiude like that there is no motivation for 3dcard manufactorers to do something about the pointy fingers (http://217.8.136.112/root/pix/Doom3/Doom3_05-01.jpg). Im sure the ears look funny close-up and the nose has no holes.

With his no polygons-rather-a-pass attitude I see a Doom4 game with the monster-count and large outdoor areas like doom1 and 2 but this time the difference is the sprites have bumpmapping (pixel-shading) and real-time lightening and shadows. As in Doom1 and 2 the monsters are only sprites, i.e a flat object with an animated texture on it.

Laugh all you want but Doom3 will be the benchmark reviewers will test hardware on and 3Dcard manufactorers will develop hardware and drivers for, just like Quake3 was. That means 3 years with no real high-poly characters (http://217.8.136.112/root/pix/Doom3/d3_high-model-01.jpg). Bumpmapping can only do so much, if you get up close, or look at it from the side, only polygons can provide real-looking graphics. Bumpmapping would be good for the even smaller details, like pores and the small wrinkles in the skin. Here I'm sure Carmack wanto bumpmap the ears details, just wait and see when Doom3 is out.

StealthHawk
11-11-02, 07:22 AM
Originally posted by GamblerFEXonlin
But of course, not the polycount in doom3 that one is awful, but I guess its all we can have so far because those polygons casts exact real-time shadows and they are animated so any more is too much for the CPU and AGP and graphics cards stencil buffer performance? I would love to read why doom3 has so low polycount.

i'm sure that Carmack has explicitly stated that it is because of the lighting system. and that has been reiterated many times by many different people here and in other boards.

Laugh all you want but Doom3 will be the benchmark reviewers will test hardware on and 3Dcard manufactorers will develop hardware and drivers for, just like Quake3 was. That means 3 years with no real high-poly characters (http://217.8.136.112/root/pix/Doom3/d3_high-model-01.jpg). Bumpmapping can only do so much, if you get up close, or look at it from the side, only polygons can provide real-looking graphics. Bumpmapping would be good for the even smaller details, like pores and the small wrinkles in the skin. Here I'm sure Carmack wanto bumpmap the ears details, just wait and see when Doom3 is out.

and who says that other devs that license the Doom 3 engine will be constrained by low polycounts for as long as the engine is in use? look at what has been done with the Quake 3 engine. the games begotten by it look much better than the original Quake 3 ever did.

Uttar
11-11-02, 08:44 AM
Well, Virtual Skipper 2 Demo simply crashes my PC, so I couldn't comment :P

As for Carmack and Doom 3. The problem with Doom 3 is SHADOWS. Doom 3 will stress the vertex engine too, but if there's the option to disable shadows ( I suppose there'll be such a thing, but I'm not sure ) , you'll rapidly see that the vertex engine isn't stressed. At all.

Shadows in Doom 3 seem to be AMAZING.

And it sounds like Carmack didn't just say that polygons were no longer so important. He made the whole industry say it.
Why do you think there's only a 1.5X increase in Vertex Shading but a 2X increase in Pixel Shading with the NV30?
I can already imagine the scene...
"Give me unlimited fillrate NOW or I'll put your driver problems public. And you wouldn't want your so high reputation Detonators being considered as completely useless, right?"
"Yes, master Carmack. We'll give you so much fillrate you'll be able to put a thousand lights at 128 bit color rendering. But PLEASE! Spare our driver reputation!"

Actually, Carmack is a lot more objective than that. But I'm certain he pretty much put the whole industry in the "fillrate is everything" direction again... Good ole Carmack :)

And BTW, it's not a so bad thing that there aren't so many polygons. That way, at least, 6X Antialiasing at 1600x1200 won't be required to make it all look as good as possible :)


Uttar

Pafet
11-11-02, 06:32 PM
to tell you the truth, IMO unreal 2 is just like the original Unreal (and the best at that) only with high polycount and killer-size textures. the shadows are nice but nothing more.

I believe that good engines come first with features limited to current hardware and as new games come out, which use that engine, they add those - polies and textures.

I hate to bring it up AGAIN (actually I love it :) :) ) but get a load of the "Quake - Tenebrae" (http://pafet.netfirms.com/) with the new HiRes textures (some twice the size used in the leak) and tell me it doesn't look good...
BTW they're also working on detailed models as well

http://tenebrae.sourceforge.net/

StealthHawk
11-11-02, 08:16 PM
Originally posted by Uttar
Why do you think there's only a 1.5X increase in Vertex Shading but a 2X increase in Pixel Shading with the NV30?

well, it could have something to do with Vertex Shaders already being more powerful and flexible than Pixel Shaders, which is why more work needed to be done on the PS side.

LORD-eX-Bu
11-12-02, 12:40 AM
Originally posted by Pafet
to tell you the truth, IMO unreal 2 is just like the original Unreal (and the best at that) only with high polycount and killer-size textures. the shadows are nice but nothing more.

I believe that good engines come first with features limited to current hardware and as new games come out, which use that engine, they add those - polies and textures.

I hate to bring it up AGAIN (actually I love it :) :) ) but get a load of the "Quake - Tenebrae" (http://pafet.netfirms.com/) with the new HiRes textures (some twice the size used in the leak) and tell me it doesn't look good...
BTW they're also working on detailed models as well

http://tenebrae.sourceforge.net/

Wow those are coming along really nicely. Maybe I'll re-install Maya and put out a few models, heh, not touching 3DS again, I hate it.:D

sytaylor
11-12-02, 11:59 AM
i think the models in doom3 have an almost tenabre look to them... in that the bump mapping makes the textures look silly at points, cus they get too shinny... yeah its good, at times great but the edges of things look stupid... its a step in the right direction but we cant forget polys!

SavagePaladin
11-12-02, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by Pafet

I hate to bring it up AGAIN (actually I love it :) :) ) but get a load of the "Quake - Tenebrae" (http://pafet.netfirms.com/) with the new HiRes textures (some twice the size used in the leak) and tell me it doesn't look good...
BTW they're also working on detailed models as well

http://tenebrae.sourceforge.net/
It doesn't look good

(Hides in his hole since people will figure out rather quickly that hes the only one on Earth that thinks so)

What I think would look good....is a computer and 3d and 3d sound system fast enough that any limits weren't directly noticable. Yes, that's too much to ask, but whatever.

SavagePaladin
11-13-02, 02:16 AM
Speaking of, Gambler, why not whine about something useful like that shot not being in high res or with FSAA. Yes, of course it doesn't look too good at its conditions.

Scooter
11-18-02, 11:08 AM
8==========D:o *******

vampireuk
11-18-02, 11:18 AM
Scooter grow up, damnit make me a mod then I can stop this garbage;) :D

bloody time zones;) :)

Scooter
11-18-02, 12:42 PM
whatchoo talking about, vampireuk

http://www.robotfrank.com/gary3.jpg

Nephilim
11-19-02, 05:07 AM
Originally posted by GamblerFEXonlin
http://www.nvnews.net/#1036954373

"Enormous polygon counts with special rendering mode for GeForce3 and GeForce4. Dot 3 bump mapping, pixel shaders and vertex shaders. Gorgeous real time water reflection."

If they call this (http://217.8.136.112/root/pix/skipper_01.jpg) high-poly and are almost saying "this is what graphics you can expect from a GF3 and GF4" I am dissapointed. They could at least have used bumpmapping on the boats details/windows. The water looks good but it seems thats where all the polygons went, the bridge in the background and its little island is just awful.

I wanto see doom3 like bumpmapping and lightening/shadowing, that is what I find next-gen and impressive now, not reflective and refractive pixel-shaded water effects (and the rest looks cartoony like most other games). But of course, not the polycount in doom3 that one is awful, but I guess its all we can have so far because those polygons casts exact real-time shadows and they are animated so any more is too much for the CPU and AGP and graphics cards stencil buffer performance? I would love to read why doom3 has so low polycount.

Well, all I have to say is, did you even try the demo, or just look at the crap screenshots on the site? If you didn't try the demo, then you are missing out on the specular highlights on the sails (not to mention the translucency), the reflective outer boat hulls, the real-time reflections on the water (which I know you mentioned, but you have to see it in action...for all 8 sailboats plus background dressing), the ease at which you can run the demo at 1600x1200 with AA on and still have acceptable framerates.

That's not even getting into the animated, fully 3 dimensional crew (which there are a lot more of on the larger boats).

Here's (http://neph.threethirteen.net/vs2.jpg) a 1600x1200 shot to look at.

As for your Doom3 effects. Well, there are only so many effects you can put on objects until they become unrealistic. Not everything is bumpy or shiny. The whole point of John Carmack's thing about taking passes over polygons was basically saying that having an arseload of polygons is great and all, but if you can't put any effects on them, then what good are they to you? You'll end up having a really high poly-count Quake 1 without Tenebrae/Doom3 styled effects.

With the effects you can make things appear higher poly-count than they actually are to some degree. The more passes you have per polygon, the more effects you can tag onto them before it starts to seriously effect your framerate.

Nephilim
11-19-02, 05:08 AM
Originally posted by SavagePaladin
It doesn't look good

(Hides in his hole since people will figure out rather quickly that hes the only one on Earth that thinks so)


Heh, you aren't the only one. :)

ReDeeMeR
11-19-02, 06:42 PM
While the room texturing is nice, it does look rather weird then good, but the pointy thing with the pointy shadows make it look like a sarcastic kiddie game where you have those boxed type robots etc.

Ahhh *remembering the days of WarCraft 1, Dune, Doom2 and then Quake 1* :rolleyes: :cool: